Richard Spring MP
Member of Parliament for West Suffolk

As an MP who has taken an active interest in trying to help deal with problem of drugs in our society, it was very disappointing, but fully expected, to read the report issued by the UK Drug Policy Commission, an independently funded group, which stated that a decade of conducting a ‘war on drugs’ had achieved very little.

The facts are stark: the illegal drugs market is worth £5bn and the estimated social cost of drug-related crime is £13 million. 1,700 deaths a year are attributable directly to drug use, and there is a clear linkage to youth crime in particular.

With a market as lucrative as drugs, controlling and preventing the suppliers was not going to be easy, but over ten years, this Government has presided over a situation whereby Britain now has the worst drug addiction rate in Europe. Its eye-catching headlines of crackdowns, initiatives and Czars – and underlying confused message - have failed to address the true extent of the problem. It is overwhelmingly members of the younger generation that are having their lives ruined by drugs and their consequences. After all, they are more likely to be victim of a mugging, robbery or a fatal stabbing by an addict desperate for money for his next fix.

It is up to the Government to recognise the urgent need for comprehensive rehabilitation, especially in our prisons. If we are warned that cigarettes can kill, then modern day cannabis, with its much higher carcinogenic properties, should first and foremost be a health issue of the highest order.

On Friday, I sat in on a meeting between a GP, a specialist police officer and a young man with significant problems. He came from a local wholly dysfunctional family, immersed in substantial abuse and criminality. He had been a prolific offender to feed a heroin addiction costing about £65 per day. It ruined his life. He is on methadone and diazepan but still buys a limited quantity of heroin from time to time. He has been warned that this is life threatening. He is struggling to cope with household bills. Mercifully, he is off crime.

Incredibly he was encouraged by a bank to open an account and was given a credit card. That pushed him into overspending. The GP and the police officer were helping him on every level. It was moving and yet very depressing; it was part of a focused crime relief effort.

Drugs are the root cause of so much youth crime. Throwing people into jail will achieve little if not complemented by specific educational, health, crime reduction and rehabilitation objectives. We fail to get a grip on this at our peril. 

It has been said of this Government that they have appointed more tsars than there were in the history of the Imperial Russian family. We even had a drugs tsar who parted company with the Government in rather acrimonious circumstances.

The Home Office now tell us that the criminal market in drugs generates £4.5 billion, that drugs-related crime costs us £12 billion, and that cocaine usage in England and Wales is virtually the highest in Europe. Now the Magistrates’ Association has stepped in to complain of the very muddled message about drugs which the Government is sending out.

Ecstasy consumption has apparently fallen somewhat. Is this something to do with the well reported deaths of young people who have taken ecstasy? I suspect so. If you turn on the radio or television, you get messages about preventing heart attacks, fire in the home, or drinking and driving. There are even threats about either the obese or smokers being denied treatment on the NHS.

Yet where are the warning messages about taking drugs, and their often terrible health consequences? Or clarity from the Government on drugs classifications? Drugs abuse is about wrecking people’s lives, and that of their families; it is at the heart of so much of youth crime. If ever there was a case for joined up government, it is between our initiative – crazed Home Office and our (“you’ve never had it so good”) Department of Health. We fail to put our collective minds to this problem at our peril.

Shortly after I first became a Member of Parliament, I was approached by a local GP to discuss drugs abuse which he said was rife and on the increase. It led me to visit many drugs centres in the country, to find out about drugs, their impact on people’s lives and treatment and rehabilitation programmes. 

It is interesting that in an era when cigarette smoking is viewed so negatively because of its health impact, the health implications of cannabis have not been widely aired. 

Cannabis has carcinogenic properties far more potent than tobacco. Some studies suggest that habitual pot smokers begin to suffer mouth or lung cancer prematurely. We should also bear in mind that new variants of cannabis, like skunk, are far stronger than the cannabis of a generation ago.

I was told that taking cannabis for some was like pouring very hot water into a crystal tumbler which had a tiny flaw. One day the glass would disintegrate quite unexpectedly. In the same way those with an unknown predisposition to mental instability could be pushed into a really unstable condition. Yet, of course, we know that there is also some evidence that cannabis in its medicinal form – cannabinoids – may be helpful in softening the impact of certain diseases. 

After learning all of this, I set up a Drugs Task Force in Newmarket to help people affected by drugs, especially young people. Of course, the long term beneficial impact of the task force was very difficult to measure, but at least it brought key parts of the local community together to try to tackle the problem. 

Now evidence has been produced to suggest a very clear linkage indeed mental instability and heavy cannabis use. I am not remotely surprised. Cannabis smoking is not some cheerful recreational activity, free of risk. 

I suspect others are now taking on board what I discovered years ago from professionals in the field. We now need to look carefully at not only the question of the right drugs classification, but also whether the health issue needs to be properly aired.   

What do you think? Can we now escape from the did he/she or didn’t he/she stuff that trivialises this subject.